ae_add_bounce_expression

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description explains that applied keyframes will overshoot and settle, and mentions robustness against overflow. However, it does not clarify whether existing expressions are replaced or how the tool interacts with other effects, leaving some behavioral ambiguity given no annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise with two sentences, avoiding fluff. It front-loads the main purpose and provides some context, though it could benefit from more structured parameter guidance.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has six parameters (one required) and no output schema, the description lacks details on prerequisites (e.g., existing keyframes), removal, and re-application behavior. Missing explanation for 'comp' and 'layer' parameters also hurts completeness.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description adds no meaningful explanation beyond what the schema already provides for amplitude, frequency, and decay. The 'property' parameter is listed but not elaborated. 'comp' and 'layer' are not described, and with 50% schema coverage, the description fails to compensate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states that the tool applies a bounce expression to a property (scale, position, or rotation) as an alternative to manual keyframing. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by specifying the exact behavior and property types.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description indicates when to use it ('instead of hand-keying springiness') and mentions its origin, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare it to alternatives among siblings.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.